Death

It's definitely, definitely the hardest thing for me. I think about how crappy it is to have a mother who is hurt by my religious decisions, but how much worse would it be to realize that when I lose someone in my family, they're gone forever?

A lot of the Atheists I speak to don't think about it, or don't seem to mind. What do you think?
(Hopefully this isn't a duplicate thread.)

Replies to This Discussion

I never cease to be amazed at the number of people, even some atheists, who think there is some mystery about "what happens after death". This is one of the simplest, most straightforward facts there is in life. When you die "you" as a conscious entity cease to exist. Period. Why is that hard too understand? Yes, of course our constituent atoms continue to exist, but that is completely irrelevant in any consciousness sense. To ask "where do we go when we die" makes no more sense than asking where does the flame go when you blow out the candle. As far as death is concerned, there is zero difference between humans and any other living thing that dies. As to emotional feelings about this fact, that is a different question, one that might rightly be entertained AFTER the hard fcat is determined, not before. I am an only child too, and have no children. I loved my mother dearly and of course I would like to see her again. But my (or your) wants are utterly meaningless as far as the facts are concerned. We can and we will eventually overcome death. There will be people eventually, who are truly immortal except for catastrophic accidents. The fly in the ointment is, that this will only be available to the rich and powerful...as usual.

Elderly people are a nuisance. It's best to hand them over to the welfare state for processing and forget about them. This may seem a callous way to treat relatives who will not be seen again but I don't care.

Why not? If they truly are a nuisance I treat them with the same disrespect as I treat non-elderly nuisances. However, most elderly people I gathered around me are no nuisance, but wise, experienced people with allot to teach me. So I do not fully agree with Napoleon... although I suspect he is trolling somewhat. ;)

Your assertion that things cannot cease to exist is in direct contrast to reason and logic. It is the pattern of atoms that give something its existence and therefore its identity. There is nothing special about the molecules that make you up, it is the way in which they come together that is important and when they stop creating that pattern that is you, you will no longer be. To say that some part of reality always exists is to say that nothing does. It is to attempt to negate the validity of identity and definition. We call a tree a tree and wood wood for a reason. While the wood was once part of the tree, it is not the tree. And when it is burned to ashes, it will no longer be wood. A piece of wax without a wick, is not a candle. And if you burn a candle down completely, there will be no wick and therefore no candle, only melted wax. It makes no sense to look at the wax on the table where there once was a candle and assert that it is still a candle. The myriad of particles that made the candle what it once was still exist of course, but in a different pattern (one not forming a candle). The pattern that gave the candle its identity and therefore existence is no longer. Something is not the same as its pieces; it's its pieces in a certain order. You are incorrectly equating a thing's particles and that thing. The thing is all the particles in a particular pattern. Just because the particle will continue to exist, does not mean that the pattern they held will.

If you assert that things can be after they are destroyed, then you might as well say that life after death (which is the end of life) is possible. This is what it looks like you mean, but then if so, cannot anything mean anything then? I wonder what sort of 'reason' drove you to become an atheist? Was it that you just don't like monotheism? Because it certainly doesn't appear that you adhere to the laws of causality and noncontradiction. If rather that describing existence and identity for what it is concretely, you seem to use metaphor as an sufficient tool for definition. Just because you can liken life to a computer file (both of which can be destroyed, by the way), does not mean that they are the same.

I was lucky in that few people died during my childhood. The tragedy of that familial longevity is that people are inevitably dropping off like flies now and there is so much pain to deal with over a rather short period of time. So, it's safe to say that death is a topic I have given much thought to.

Although many opportunities were woefully neglected, certainly I am happy for the extra years I have been able to spend with these people. I am also happy that I have been able to completely abandon all belief in heaven, hell, valhala, the North Pole, etc. prior to most of their deaths. When I was a child, Heaven and Hell were considered very real places. The fear of Hell, I think, was more a reason why I continued believing than excitement over Heaven--which sounded horribly boring. A family friend died when I still believed and it tore me apart thinking that he was probably in Hell. My mom had a dream that he had repented moments before he died and that was how she dealt with it. Even then I knew that that was just a sort of cognitive dissidence which thankfully I don't need anymore.

My Dad died nearly a year ago. It was tragic, there's literally not a single day where I don't think about him, but I know for a fact that he is not in hell or anywhere else for that matter. I wish he were alive, but I don't have to worry about him being tortured for the entire rest of eternity. Such things are nonsense and I wish my believing mother could have that comfort. Rather than waste time and stress about what could be happening to him (and all rationality says is not), I can instead concern myself with memories, and trying to make the best of life in his absence.

He will be gone forever, and there are a million things I wish could be different, but my greatest sadness is that my newphew will grow up without his grandpa. The only thing I can do is to let his memory live on through me.

You have said it very beautifully Caroline. By just growing up and accepting that one day we are all going to die, and that based on what we know that there will be no afterlife, for any of us is scary at first, but then peaceful once you accept it. You don't need to fear death for the fact that you won't know if you are dead you will just cease to exist.

I tend to disagree with your assessment of 'fear'. As far as I can tell, religion itself created the fear of death. When cultural anthropologists study tribal humans who are without religion, these kinds of fears simply do not exist, concepts of imaginary beings do not exist either.

Fear is a tool used that powerful people use to subdue masses, so fears are created, even when/where there should be none.

Death, we die, so what?

Death needs to be de-tabooed, de-sacrified, de-mysteried. (sorry for invented words :)

Celebrate life, and when someone leaves it, celebrate who they WERE in life. Make it your duty to carry their memory with you and keep their gifts in the world.... or something like that.

I couldnt agree more. In teaching my kids about death I found it went right along with teaching them where the atoms come from that combined to make them. They understand that my wish to be creamated stems from my desire to get those atoms back into circulation when my life is over.

I think my kids and I both take great comfort in this knowledge. And the fact that they can keep some of my atoms close to them for the rest of their life also seems to give comfort to loss they will have to one day except.

They are not free from all fear... if a large predator prances into camp at night, moms fear for their child's safety, as does any animal. It's the general assessment of fear without a concrete causal agent. I look at your definition and I see that your version of religion is the result of a populist push, which I totally disagree with. Religion does not originate, as far as I can tell, from "the masses". I see it only as a tool, that wiser people (surprisingly?) discovered. A tool for mass manipulation and control, which utilises a weakness of the human brain, mimicry. These wiser people discovered they could hold POWER over others by creating fear 'systems', fear concepts, where no direct causal agent is present. In the end, it does take a wise person to exercise such control over others.

I don't think there is much in our society that is 'populist' in origin, most grand ideas, inventions, philosophies, etc all have very punctual and 'personal' origins, I see religion no differently.

I, as you, as a youth, occasionally rationalised religion through the awesomness of 'nature' as you mention... but I've come to realise that it does not fit the general pattern of human inventiveness.

To me fear should be non-existent outside of immediate risk to life. All other forms of fear are social disfunctions due to human overpopulation and the stress of constant close proximity.

I prefer to envision human society as an ape society, rather than an ant/termite/bee society, as many overpopulation-denialists would like to compare us to. We are not insects, we are apes. And the incredibly high densities we chose to live in are not conducive to healthy non fear. Our instincts and evolution do not take into account big city life and fast cars and nasty bosses, so our biology does what it can to cope... and fear/anxiety is a common result.

I am presently reading (ever so slowly) a book called RISK, which is along those lines as well.